How has UAA evolved since its creation four–five years ago? Is our current status sustainable? We all know the importance of institutional capacity building, but we seem to be primarily coasting on the original concept rather than innovating.
How do we get the organization out of the trap created by the initial decision to build our “membership” and database on names of people whom original participants thought might be interested in UAA, rather than on people who actually have expressed an interest in the organization and made contributions to confirm their interest?
Why do we appear to be faltering on retaining active contributing members and on attracting new ones?
Given that the groundswell of retiree interest in helping USAID re-emerge has somewhat subsided, and many retirees have actually found their way back into the ranks of USAID direct hires or some other USAID-related employment category, how do we make sure we are still offering a menu of options that will appeal to these and other retirees?
Since there probably isn’t a single formula that will appeal to all retirees today, how do we diversify our events and services so that we can increase overall support and active involvement?
How do we diversity our membership beyond former FSOs to include more civil servants (GS), FSNs, RASAs and PASAs, political appointees, etc., and what implications does diversification have for the kinds of services we provide and events we sponsor?
Can we attract more regular hits on our website by beefing up announcements of employment and volunteer opportunities?
Since our efforts to encourage registered alumni outside the Washington area to sponsor local UAA gatherings have failed to-date, should we just concentrate on activities in the Washington area?
In many ways we are in competition with other Washington area organizations with an international development focus (AFSA, DACOR, think tanks, etc.). How can we capitalize on partnerships with these often more-established organizations?
